Quotes of the day

posted at 10:21 pm on February 4, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

With his gun proposals dividing Congress, President Barack Obama took his case for universal background checks and for banning some military-style weapons to the upper Midwest on Monday, looking to build public support for his measures and to apply pressure on lawmakers.

Obama argued that there’s bipartisan support for a system to undertake criminal checks on gun buyers and for gun trafficking laws but, acknowledging the political challenges he faces, would only say that the assault weapons ban deserves a vote in Congress.

‘‘We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something,’’ he said. …

‘‘Changing the status quo is never easy,’’ Obama said. ‘‘This will be no exception. The only way we can reduce gun violence in this county is if it the American people decide it’s important, if you decide it’s important — parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, hunters and sportsmen, Americans of every background stand up and say, ‘This time, it’s got to be different.’’’

***

Senate Democratic leaders expect a gun bill to move to the Senate floor that includes most of the proposals backed by President Barack Obama, with the notable exception of a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, a top aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. …

The details provide the first snapshot of how Senate Democrats plan to move forward on major gun legislation in coming weeks.

But the strategy outline also reflects a growing sense within Democratic ranks that some of the president’s most ambitious goals—particularly the call for new bans on certain types of military-style guns often described as assault weapons—may be unrealistic, the Reid aide said.

The goal is to get the bill to the Senate floor next month, at which point lawmakers could then seek to amend the legislation by adding a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons or other provisions, the aide said.

***

REID: George, I’ve been supported by the NRA on occasion. I know Wayne LaPierre. He’s always been extremely pleasant to me. We have a good relationship. So I — I am not here to demean the organization.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they are resisting almost everything you’ve talked about and we’ve talked about here, everything the president has called for.

REID: George, just because they resist it doesn’t mean we can’t do things. I mean, we have a lot of special interest groups that come and complain about things, and we don’t listen to them. We’ll listen to them and make the right decision.

David Axelrod suggested on Morning Joe that Chicago’s high rate of gun crime can be blamed on the fact that “surrounding areas” have lax gun laws. What is true here is that the guns used in Chicago crimes come from outside of Chicago, because they “don’t have gun stores in Chicago.” Many crime guns are purchased just outside the city limits, though more than half come from other states.

However, Illinois as a whole is fairly strict when it comes to guns — all gun owners must have a license, and it’s the only state in the nation that doesn’t allow concealed carry by private citizens under any circumstances. (This will change if Richard Posner’s recent ruling holds up.) I’m not sure how much stricter a state could be without running afoul of the Second Amendment. And the communities these guns come from typically have much lower crime rates than Chicago does. …

Frankly, I don’t think gun control has much to do with Chicago’s murder problem. It seems to be mostly gang-related, which means that (A) any guns that can’t be bought legally will be bought illegally and (B) arming the law-abiding won’t make much difference either, because the violence is taking place between criminals. We still should arm the law-abiding, so that they may defend themselves against burglaries and the like, but they are rarely the victims of gang murders.

According to a survey from Siena Research Institute, 65 percent of those polled back the measure, which was passed last month in the wake of the December shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn. Thirty percent are opposed. …

The legislation, the toughest in the country, took steps including banning certain kinds of military-style weapons, reducing the ammunition quantities weapons can hold and requiring background checks to purchase bullets.

The Church Protection Act would allow individual places of worship to decide whether to allow concealed handguns and who could carry them. The Republican-controlled House passed the bill 85-8 with bipartisan support. The measure previously passed the Republican-controlled Senate 28-4.

Arkansas joins a handful of other states, including South Carolina, Wyoming and Louisiana, that allow guns in churches, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

***

If Idahoans, like Americans in many states, have rushed to buy guns out of fear for personal safety in the aftermath of recent mass shootings, or out of fear of tighter legal controls, then democracy has already spoken, many lawmakers said. People have voted with their pocketbooks.

“Enable them to do what they believe is right,” said State Senator Marv Hagedorn, a Republican who was designated to be his chamber’s point man on proposed gun legislation in the session that began in January, describing what he sees as his mandate. “There’s a huge call to all of us to protect the Second Amendment rights.”

Every level of government in every state is, without question, looking more closely at issues of public safety since the slaughter in Newtown, Conn., of 20 children and 6 adults in an elementary school in December. But in deeply conservative states like Idaho, where President Obama got less than 33 percent of the vote in November — one of his worst showings in the nation — the discussion of school safety is occurring behind a kind of Chinese wall, separate from the question of whether certain types of guns or high-capacity magazines are to blame. …

The Idaho Department of Education has also been meeting to talk through the new terrain of school safety, even as some districts have said that they may move ahead on their own in allowing teachers and administrators to be openly armed, as Idaho law already permits.

***

According to multiple studies summarized by the Treatment Advocacy Center, these untreated mentally ill are responsible for 10% of all homicides (and a higher percentage of the mass killings), constitute 20% of jail and prison inmates and at least 30% of the homeless. Severely mentally ill individuals now inundate hospital emergency rooms and have colonized libraries, parks, train stations and other public spaces. The quality of the lives of these individuals mocks the lofty intentions of the founders of the CMHC program.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this 50-year federal experiment is its inordinate cost. In 2009, 4.7 million Americans received SSI or SSDI because of mental illnesses, not including mental retardation, a tenfold increase since 1977. The total cost was $46 billion. The total Medicaid and Medicare costs for mentally ill individuals in 2005 was more than $60 billion. …

Nor is President Obama likely to do anything, since his lead agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, has essentially denied that a problem exists. Its contribution to the president’s response to the Dec. 14 Newtown tragedy focused only on school children and insurance coverage. And its current plan of action for 2011-14, a 41,000-word document, includes no mention of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or outpatient commitment, all essential elements in an effective plan for corrective action.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The only thing crosspatch is right about is that the democrats are overreaching. The rest is crap. The Republican Party, whether tea party or est has to remember one thing- the foot soldiers of the party are SoCons, not fisc Cons. Even in these fiscally irresponsible times, without the foot soldiers (SoCons), the pubs won’t win jack.
tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 7:47 AM

No, what crosspatch is saying is that in many areas of the country we need a competitive Republican who is not seen as an ultra conservative “Tea Party” type. Simply putting up the most ultra conservative or whomever is most closely associated with the Tea Party, with little regard to the particular state’s voting demographic, is idiotic and means more Democrats getting elected and reflected.

Karl Rove is doing important work here, and I commend him for it. Recognizing the value in what he is doing doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything he has ever done or said.

Car accident? Wow. Sorry, didn’t know. Take care, b9. Yeah with OCare, everyones gotta work harder, and finances will get very tight. Its a delicate balancing act even to survive nowadays. Food, shelter, fuel and health take up almost everything. Not a very bright future on the horizon.

The Republican Party, whether tea party or est has to remember one thing- the foot soldiers of the party are SoCons, not fisc Cons. Even in these fiscally irresponsible times, without the foot soldiers (SoCons), the pubs won’t win jack.

tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 7:47 AM

With all due respect, the foot soldiers of the GOP includes SoCons and FiscCons (Dem foot soliders consist mainly of the regular kind of con). The problem IMO is that the left/radicals/Dems have managed to divide the SoCons from the FiscCons in order to win.

It wasn’t for nothing that they appealed to greedy stupid people with wombs or a same-sex partners when setting up the debate. Single issue voters and people that won’t even consider a candidate because of their religion are just as much part of the parasite class as any supporter of the rat-eared wonder. The GOP needs to unite in a way that will get the support of both SoCons and FiscCons.

We spent this last election being told that social issues don’t matter in this economy and to many voters that isn’t true. Conversely the current trend by the so-called frontrunners for 2016- pandering to single issue voters by running around with “I heart Illegals” t-shirts is not going to win the hearts and minds of FiscCons.

Blue, you gonna send $ to Rove’s Pac?
Send all you got! Even your $ earmarked for
your I phone bill and the Net. :P
I think I will send Pain some $ today.
Just for you.
bazil9 on February 5, 2013 at 8:00 AM

I very well might. Won’t send any to Palin, though. She is a quitter and a self-promoting, divisive quitter that I simply don’t trust that much.

Yeah, gill, we saw McCain and Romney win, didn’t we? Lol. Keep dreaming that you can divorce the fisc cons from the SoCons and win. And why reference Akin? Hes an idjit. A SoCon, but still an idjit. Thats what got him in trouble. And the tea party never supported him. Get that meme out of your head. They were split between his 2 primary opponents.

Yeah blue, I know. ZZZZ
Like the word quitter, I see.
Why don’t you try it-quit HA.
I like quitters!
Fools part with their $-I am not stunned you
are all steamy over Rove super duper PAC.
They count on the common folk like you.

Yeah, gill, we saw McCain and Romney win, didn’t we? Lol. Keep dreaming that you can divorce the fisc cons from the SoCons and win. And why reference Akin?
tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 8:11 AM

I’m not sure where you got this fixation on SoCons from right now. Crosspatch’s comment was about the Tea Party and Karl Rove’s effort.

And, by the way, Romney was socially conservative, but he wasn’t seen as a hardcore SoCon like Akin or Santorum were. And Romney also outperformed each and every so-called Tea Party candidate, FYI, including Ted Cruz in TX.

Anyway, if Rove can beat back and keep some wackadoodles like Akin and Angle from getting the nomination, then I’ll be happy. Seriously, the whole “let’s nominate an ultra conservative in every state for emotional satisfaction and who cares if we lose since we stuck it to the establishment bogeymen we’ve built up in our heads and that Mark Levin always talks about” approach must end.

Yeah blue, I know. ZZZZ
Like the word quitter, I see.
Why don’t you try it-quit HA.
I like quitters!
Fools part with their $-I am not stunned you
are all steamy over Rove super duper PAC.
They count on the common folk like you.
bazil9 on February 5, 2013 at 8:23 AM

I care about my country and support causes I believe in. I believe that is important.

I don’t think you read my post clearly enough. I was referring to Jindal, Rubio, among others who are out there embracing the left’s position on these social issues in order to pander for votes among the single issue (i.e. greedy stupid unamerican parasites) who will vote for one candidate over another simply so that their abuelo Carlos or Tia Maria will be given citizenship ahead of people that are trying to do it the legal way.

Wrong again, gill. Both McCain and Romney said the words, but weren’t perceived as SoCons. People knew that they were pandering. GWB, on the other hand, was perceived as one. And guess what, he won. Rove, if hes after crazies like Akin, thats fine. But if hes after the tea party, is further splintering the Republicans.

Wrong again, gill. Both McCain and Romney said the words, but weren’t perceived as SoCons.
tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 8:34 AM

I beg to differ on that one, at least with regard to Romney. Romney may not have been defined by his positions on social issues, but he was most certainly viewed as socially conservative, and he got the support of socially conservative voters. That’s just a fact.

Although, you appear to care more about insulting fellow cons here
and obsessions then articulating your beliefs and causes you find important.
bazil9 on February 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM

My main problem here is with the people who simply parrot Mark Levin and rail against any Republican who isn’t 100% ideologically pure. They call everything a RINO. Such people also tend to worship the gimmicky former governor who is now nothing but a punchline (Palin). Honestly, it is like group think with these people. I guarantee you that each and every one listens to Mark Levin and has to hear his show to know what to think about anything.

Those are the ones I can’t stand here. They’re like all the same person. So, when I see an actual thoughtful commenter like crosspatch, I want to commend them and draw attention to their postings.

The divisiveness, as I see it, comes mostly from the Mark Levin parrots and the Palinistas who insist on predictably framing things as a TruCon – Establishment dichotomy in every single race. And then they quickly turn on the TrueCon once he gets elected, IF he gets elected, because they believe only Palin is a pure conservative.

No, he didn’t. Most of the SoCons never backed Romney. Stating that something is a fact doesn’t make it one.
tommy71 on February 5, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Yes, they did! I don’t have time to find all the sources for you. You should do some research and educate yourself a bit by going over the 2012 polls again. Let me guess, Mark Levin told you they didn’t support him. Sigh

The far right SoCons didn’t find him socially conservative enough-
and looked at his record and didn’t trust him- a la Mr flip Flop.
Middle of the road pubs and the left felt he was very SO conservative.
IMO. Perspective.

As someone who isn’t far right socially- that wasn’t my problem with Mitt.
I am not a Bush fan, what so ever. His So/Con creds weren’t why I voted for him either.
For many-it isn’t a So/Con problem but the nutty ones they put up.
Just my opinion.

You are tiresome. Broad brush in your right hand all the time and assumptions.

btw..I do not listen to Mark Levin or Rush.

I liked and support Palin but don’t worship the woman.
Your obsessions and spasms are off putting. Perhaps if you changed your attack mode and nutty insults to posters- people would actually converse/debate with you. So, you lose.
Too bad you don’t recognize that.

I have never, ever listened to Levin or Rush. But my opinion stands. And I’m not the purityTruCon kind, either. But if Rove goes after the tea party, we’ll splinter the pubs again, which inturn will give the dems the wedge they desire. That, I don’t support. Thats my assertion.

You are tiresome. Broad brush in your right hand all the time and assumptions.
btw..I do not listen to Mark Levin or Rush.
I liked and support Palin but don’t worship the woman.
Your obsessions and spasms are off putting. Perhaps if you changed your attack mode and nutty insults to posters- people would actually converse/debate with you. So, you lose.
Too bad you don’t recognize that.
I have work to do. Not waste my time.
Have a splendid day.
bazil9 on February 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM

When did I ever attack you? All I did was repost a comment written by crosspatch.

And when I post negative things about Sarah Palin, often I am doing it to counter the absurd worship that she gets on here. I’m sorry, but I think she would be a disaster as the nominee. It is nothing personal against her.

Rove is not “going after” the Tea Party. It sounds like he is going to be supporting competitive Republicans in races where an untested, ultraconservative probably wouldn’t do so well in the general. That is a GOOD thing. How you twist that to mean “going after” the Tea Party is beyond me.

Nominating the most ultra conservative candidate in every race with little regard for anything else is not a sound strategy.

Come on, gill. Are you this naive? We all know Rove. And hes going after the tea party. If you don’t believe me, wait till it happens. I’ll be here on HA to remind you when it does. This talk of ‘ultraconservative’ is a play on semantics, which in reality means the tea party.